Jlk. 


John  Fox 


The  Shorter  Bible 
The  Old  Testament 


v^^m 


t'^f 


Ifv 


%r^^ 


BSI95  iHm 
.I.K37 


Ml 


ifi<^ 


A     N  'asnjojXs    Z=Z 


(^  3  1922 

OLD 


lary,  1922 


FT 


'^r 


THE  SHORTER  BIBLE-THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT 


JOHN    FOX 


Reprinted  from 
The  Princeton  Theological  Review,  Vol.  XX,  No.  i,  January,  1922 


^ 


The   Shorter  Bible — The  Old  Testament 

With  the  pnbhcation  of  the  present  volume/  the  Shorter 
Bible  is  now  brought  to  completion,  the  Nezv  Testament  having 
come  from  the  press  in  1918.  The  publishers  of  these  two 
handy  and  beautiful  companion  volumes  are  here  not  merely 
publishers.  Their  official  representative  is  also  one  of  the  au- 
thors and  editors,  thus  bringing  the  prestige  of  this  famous 
firm  to  the  aid  of  the  Shorteners  and  sharing  their  responsibili- 
ties. The  Prefaces  to  the  two  Testaments  should  be  carefully 
compared.  They  are  just  enough  alike  to  sound  practically 
identical,  but  they  are  not  so.  The  N.T.  Preface  states  that 
the  Shorter  Bible  aims  simply  to  single  out  "those  parts  of  the 
Bible  which  are  of  vital  interest  and  practical  value  to  the 
present  age."  "These  passages,"  we  are  assured,  "contain  the 
true  heart  of  the  Bible,  that  has  proved  the  inspiration  of  past 
generations,  and  will  prove  in  increasing  measure  the  guide  of 
those  to  come."  This  clearly  implies  that  the  omitted  passages 
are  not  "vital  and  valuable"  to  present  and  future  ages,  not  "the 
true  heart  of  the  Bible." 

Criticisms,  many  and  severe,  were  made  on  such  a  disparage- 
ment of  one  third  of  the  New  Testament  and  a  prospective 
two  thirds  of  the  Old,  in  spite  of  the  disclaimer  that  the  Shorter 
Bible  is  not  to  be  "a  substitute  for  the  complete  text  of  the 
time-honored  versions."  This  disclaimer  is  now  repeated,  but 
the  passages  quoted  above  from  the  N.T.  Preface  are  not  re- 
peated. Instead  we  are  told  that  the  passages  now  published 
as  the  Shorter  Old  Testament  are  "especially  well  suited  ...  to 
kindle  the  interest  of  the  busy  modern  reader  in  the  Bible  as  a 

1  The  Shorter  Bible:  The  Old  Testament.  Translated  and  arranged 
by  Charles  Foster  Kent,  Woolsey  Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in 
Yale  University;  with  the  collaboration  of  Charles  Cutler  Torrey,  Pro- 
fessor of  Semitic  Languages  in  Yale  University;  Henry  A.  Sherman, 
Head  of  the  Department  of  Religious  Literature  of  Charles  Scribner's 
Sons;  Frederick  Harris,  Senior  Secretary  of  the  Publication  Depart- 
ment of  the  International  Committee  of  Young  Men's  Christian  Asso- 
ciations; Ethel  Cutler,  Religious  Work  Secretary  of  the  National 
Board  of  the  Young  Women's  Christian  Associations.  6j/^-4J/2,  pp. 
622.     (Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York,  $;?.oo  net.) 


whole."  This  change  of  key  is  quite  significant.  It  cannot  be 
accidental,  and  seems  prudential,  as  of  a  soldier  who  has  exposed 
himself  prematurely.  The  Shorteners  gave  their  case  away  too 
clearly  in  the  first  preface;  now  they  draw  back  a  little.  But 
they  do  not  repudiate  anything  they  have  said.  How  could 
they?  For  if  evidence  were  lacking  in  the  Shorter  New  Testa- 
ment of  the  real  aim  and  purpose  of  the  whole  it  is  beyond 
peradventure  in  the  Shorter  Old  Testament.  The  destructive 
criticism  of  both  Testaments  finds  all  too  plain  expression  in  the 
whole.  The  selection  of  passages  to  be  omitted  is  unexplain- 
able  otherwise.  Is  it  quite  honorable  for  scholars  not  to  avow 
their  real  purpose  more  plainly  ?  It  is  a  "Higher  Critical"  Bible, 
— why  not  have  said  so  frankly?  The  book  is  sent  out  done 
up  in  a  neat  little  paper  jacket,  in  the  modern  fashion  to  catch 
the  eye  of  the  buyer,  with  a  publishers'  notice,  to  which  might 
have  been  appropriately  added,  "Published  in  the  Interest  of 
Graf,  Wellhausen,  Cheyne,  Driver,  and  their  Heirs  and  Suc- 
cessors." 

The  "Index  of  Biblical  Passages"  (pp.  602-622)  and  the 
"Contents"  (pp.  vii-xxxi)  must  be  used  with  caution.  They 
are  certainly  not  infallible,  which  is  at  least  appropriate. 
Ruth  is  allowed  only  three  chapters  in  each  (Contents  and 
Index)  but  in  the  body  of  the  book,  all  four  appear,  though 
the  fourth  is  mutilated.  The  49th  Psalm  likewise  has  in  the 
book  four  more  verses  than  Index  and  Contents  call  for.  The 
39th  of  Job  is  abolished  in  the  Index  and  Contents,  but  part  of 
it  spared  in  the  text;  the  war  horse  appears  there  though  he 
only  "neighs"  somewhat  tamely  and  no  longer  says,  Ha!  Ha! 
We  may  note  in  passing  that  Delitzch^  prefers  Ha !  Ha !  as  we 
do.  Genesis  ii.  32  is  intentionally  cut  in  half  by  the  Short- 
eners; butt  he  Index  (not  the  Contents)  takes  the  whole  verse 
away,  including  the  last  half,  "And  Terah  died  in  Haran," 
which  happily  appears  in  the  text.  Such  homilists  as  Dr. 
Harry  E.  Fosdick,  who  have  recently  ventured  to  preach  on 
this  portion  of  the  verse,  have  had  a  narrow  escape,  granting 
that  the  Book  and  not  the  Index  expresses  the  mind  of  the 
Editors.  The  next  edition,  for  aught  we  know,  may  take  the 
whole  verse  away.  All  this  is  confusing  to  those  who  may  wish 
to  compare  the  "Shorter"  and  "Longer"  Bibles,  for  it  is  the 

2  Commentary  on  Job,  vol.  II,  p.  340. 


pride  and  boast  of  the  Shorteners  that  they  have  neither  chap- 
ter nor  verse  but  384  "sections"  of  their  own,  and  as  they  have 
no  hesitation  in  moving  once  famiHar  paragraphs  about,  an 
inexact  Index  is  somewhat  irritating,  and  tempts  one  to  wish  it 
could  be  "put  on  the  Index."  A  Scotchman  in  one  of  Barrie's 
stories  complained  that  he  never  could  find  Ezra :  "Ezra 
jumped  about  so."  Ezra  is  static  compared  with  the  "sections" 
of  the  Shorter  Bible- 

A  thorough  examination  of  the  work  is  of  course  impossible 
within  the  limits  of  this  notice ;  its  general  character  only 
can  be  indicated.  The  Shorteners  have  removed  bodily  from 
the  Canonical  Scriptures  four  whole  books,  ist  and  2nd  Chron- 
icles, Obadiah  and  Haggai.  The  present  writer  has  called  at- 
tention in  noticing  the  Nezv  Testament,^  to  the  bearing  of  this 
mode  of  procedure  on  the  whole  concept  of  a  Canon.  Is  there 
such  a  thing  as  a  Canon?  If  there  is,  on  what  principle  does  it 
rest?  Practically  its  raison  d'etre  is  taken  away,  if  any  group 
of  modern  scholars  are  privileged  without  any  pretence  of 
manuscript  evidence  or  historical  proof,  to  cast  out  of  either 
Testament  four  whole  books.  In  neither  Preface  are  any 
sufificient  reasons  given  for  electing  Chronicles  and  two  Minor 
Prophets  to  reprobation.  In  the  Chronicles  we  lose  one  of  the 
longest  pieces  of  historical  narrative  in  the  Bible  and  are  left 
without  satisfactory  information  about  many  important  mat- 
ters. To  this  wholesale  cancellation  of  Jewish  history  must 
be  added  the  mutilation  of  Zechariah,  companion  to  Haggai,  of 
whose  fourteen  chapters  we  are  allowed  to  keep  only  two 
verses.  Out  of  the  twenty-seven  chapters  of  Leviticus  only 
seventeen  verses  or  parts  of  verses  are  spared.  Forty-one 
whole  chapters  are  taken  from  the  forty-eight  of  Ezekiel,  and 
in  the  seven  remaining,  81  out  of  the  183  verses  are  gone, 
making  from  one-twelfth  to  one-fifteenth  of  the  whole  book 
left  by  the  new  Canonists.  There  is  no  hesitation  in  slashing 
wholesale  any  part  of  either  Testament.  Not  a  single  book 
in  the  Old  Testament  escapes  the  spoilers  altogether,  and  only 
one  (Philemon)  in  the  New.  Zechariah  predicted  (xiv.  21) 
that  every  pot  in  Judah  and  in  Jerusalem  shall  be  holiness 
unto  the  Lord  of  Hosts  and  promised  that  "in  that  day  there 
shall  no  more  be  the  Canaanite  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  of 

8  This  Review,  for  October  1919,  p.  650. 


hosts."    The  Canaanite  has  gotten  into  the  Bible  and  cut  this 
out. 

The  old-fashioned  title,  The  Holy  Bible,  does  not  appear  in 
the  Shorter  Bible,  and  somehow  it  would  hardly  seem  in  place 
there.  In  Genesis  twelve  whole  chapters  (v,  x,  xiv,  xv,  xvi, 
xvii,  XX,  xxiii,  xxvi,  xxxiv,  xxxvi,  xxxviii)  are  absent,  which 
describe  such  stirring  events  as  the  Battle  of  the  Kings  in  the 
vale  of  Siddim,  the  rescue  of  Lot  by  Abraham,  his  meeting  with 
Melchisedek ;  also  one  of  the  signal  theophanies  to  Abraham 
which  Paul  quotes  with  such  point  in  Romans  iv.  If  the 
aim  of  the  Shorteners  was  to  interest  "busy  modern  read- 
ers" in  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  why  did  they  blue  pencil  such 
readable  stories  as  these?  Very  few  chapters  are  given  en- 
tire. The  account  of  Noah's  flood  is  mutilated  by  leaving  out 
the  age  of  Noah  and  the  names  of  his  three  sons.  Afterwards, 
in  what  are  called  "The  Abraham  Narratives,"  the  names  of 
Shem,  Ham  and  Japhet  are  mentioned  but  transferred  out  of 
their  proper  place  in  Genesis  ix.  i8  to  xi.  32.  This  seems  in- 
explicable until  we  notice  that  the  list  of  long-lived  antedilu- 
vians in  chapter  v  has  disappeared;  likewise  the  "generations 
of  Noah"  in  chapter  x.  No  doubt  it  is  for  the  same  reason  that 
in  xi.  32,  "the  days  of  Terah  were  205  years,"  are  cut  away 
from  the  rest  of  the  verse,  "and  Terah  died  at  Haran."  Noah's 
five  hundred  years  when  his  sons  are  born  and  his  six  hundred 
when  the  flood  came,  and  the  antediluvians  in  general,  are 
stumbling  blocks  and  they  are  quietly  dropped.  Such  trans- 
posings  and  eliminations  are  thoroughly  characteristic. 

No  whole  chapter  is  taken  from  Exodus  until  we  reach  the 
significant  and  splendid  twenty-fourth.  Four  others,  the  last 
four,  share  a  similar  fate.  But  all  the  rest  are  mutilated. 
The  first  five  verses  of  the  opening  chapter  are  gone,  the 
sixth  has  a  single  verse  left  out  of  its  thirty,  the  twenty-fifth 
has  two  left,  the  thirty-fourth  and  thirty-fifth  one  apiece,  and 
so  on.  Capital  punishment  in  China,  is,  or  once  was,  inflicted 
by  slicing  the  victim  piece-meal.  This  is  the  method  by  which 
the  Bible  is  done  to  death.  If  books  could  speak,  surely  they 
would  beg  for  the  coup  de  grace  to  end  it.  Twenty-six  of 
the  thirty-six  chapters  are  taken  bodily  out  of  Numbers,  and 
twenty-two  out  of  the  thirty-four  in  Deuteronomy,  and  the 
slicing  process  applied  to  the  rest.     Proverbs  loses  only  one 


whole  chapter,  although  that  contains  the  matchless  and  ter- 
rible picture  of  an  adulteress  surely  still  needed  today,  but  by 
the  slicing  process  nearly  one-half  of  the  whole  book  is  gone. 
Ecclesiastes  appears  in  parts,  we  might  almost  say  snippets,  of 
eight  out  of  its  twelve  chapters.  The  exquisite  beauty  of  the 
Song  of  Songs  is  not  enough  to  stay  the  hand  of  the  ravish- 
ers;  out  of  the  117  verses,  full  86  are  gone,  each  several 
verse  a  pearl, — it  is  like  robbing  the  Taj  of  its  proportions,  its 
scrolls,  and  frets,  and  lights  and  shadows.  The  Greater  Pro- 
phets are  not  so  great,  and  the  Minor  are  minus  many  a  glow- 
ing rose-dawn  and  solemn  thunder  peal  of  commination. 
Jonah  still  prays  from  the  whale's  belly,  but  we  do  not  know 
what  liturgy  he  used,  for  his  prayer  is  gone,  nor  does  Malachi 
announce  the  Lord  suddenly  coming  to  his  temple. 

Half  a  loaf  is  better  than  no  bread,  and  half  a  Bible  is  better 
than  no  Bible.  Sinners  may  be  saved  by  reading  even  the 
Shorter  Bible  and  saints  edified, — somewhat, — but  why  should 
we  stint  ourselves  by  less  than  the  whole  honest  loaf?  The 
reason  given  in  the  Preface  sounds  plausible:  "to  kindle,"  we 
are  told,  "the  interest  of  the  busy  modern  reader  in  the  Bible 
as  a  whole."  Is  it  thought  it  may  kindle  such  an  interest  to 
reduce  large  sections  of  it  to  kindling  wood,  by  the  slur  cast 
on  them  in  the  New  Testament  Preface?  Any  Bible  reader  of 
reasonable  intelligence  who  compares  the  "Shorter"  with  the 
"Holy  Bible,"  must  notice  certain  things  on  the  very  surface, 
producing  first  astonishment,  then  distrust.  In  the  Contents, 
(p.  vii),  we  read  of  "Stories  and  Histories."  What  kind  of 
"Stories"?  Are  they  true  stories?  Histories  are  presumably 
records  of  fact,  while  stories  may  or  may  not  be  so.  "Bible 
Stories"  used  to  be  regarded  as  "true  stories"  and  not  as  mere 
folk-tales,  or  mythological  legends,  half  true  and  half  false. 
Old-fashioned  Sunday  School  teachers,  for  instance,  would  be 
startled  by  seeing  the  contrast  implied  in  "Stories  and  Histor- 
ies." Next  we  read,  "The  Primitive  Narratives,"  and  then, 
"The  Traditional  Origin  of  Nations  and  Languages."  Such  a 
heading  pretty  nearly  lets  the  traditional  cat  out  of  the  bag. 
"The  Traditional  Origin"  may  or  may  not  be  the  actual  origin, 
and  the  most  unsuspicious  reader  is  apt  to  have  a  disagreeable 
fear  of  what  such  a  dubious  phrase  covers  up  and  might  natur- 
ally ask,  within  himself  or  herself, — Can  it  be  that  two  Divinity 


Professors  in  Yale  University,  and  the  Secretaries  of  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.  and  the  Y.  W.  C.  A.,  are  trying  to  suggest  that  the 
Bible  is  not  reliable?  Why  were  the  names  of  Noah's  sons 
and  his  own  age  cut  out  of  the  flood  story?  Was  that  a  rec- 
ord of  fact,  or  ancient  "Tradition"  ?  Why  are  we  no  longer  to 
teach  our  children  about  Methusaleh,  or  Enoch  who  walked 
with  God?  Many  of  them  are  ignorant  enough  now.  What 
will  they  be  if  they  are  brought  up  on  the  Shorter  Bible  ?  "The 
Abraham  Narratives"  and  "The  Jacob-Esau  Narratives,"  and 
"The  Joseph  Narratives,"  are  these  "Sories"  or  "Histories"? 
The  constant  suggestion  of  the  headings  and  the  nomenclature 
of  the  Shorter  Bible,  is  of  editors  to  whom  the  Book  is  not 
impregnable  rock,  but  shifting  sand. 

What  has  become  of  the  tabernacle,  whose  divinely  revealed 
plan  and  divinely  directed  construction  are  described  with  such 
picturesque  circumstantiality,  with  all  the  web  of  dramatic 
events  accompanying  it?  The  last  four  chapters  of  Exodus  are 
gone  entirely,  and  of  the  last  seventeen  chapters  containing  568 
verses,  just  eleven  verses  are  left.  We  can  imagine  some  un- 
sophisticated reader  saying  to  himself,  Moses,  it  seems  now, 
never  went  up  into  the  mountain  and  stayed  there  for  forty  days 
and  nights,  and  never  heard  what  we  always  have  thought  he 
heard.  There  was  a  tent  of  some  kind  but  not  such  a  tent  as  we 
have  always  thought.  The  Shorter  Bible  always  stops  short  when 
it  comes  to  the  parts  which  so  affirm.  There  were  ten  command- 
ments, but  no  stone  tablets  for  him  to  break,  no  sin  of  the 
golden  calf  to  be  punished;  Moses'  face  did  not  shine  so  that  he 
had  to  put  a  veil  over  it  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord  which  ap- 
peared as  devouring  fire  in  the  mount  is  vanished.  The  Short- 
er Bible  has  the  veil  without  the  glory.  A  very  simple  explana- 
tion will  make  clear  to  the  unsophisticated  reader  what  this  all 
means.  The  Shorter  Bible  may  have  been  published  as  the 
O.T.  Preface  says,  to  persuade  busy  men  and  women  to  take  an 
interest  in  the  whole  Bible,  but  it  is  plainly  meant  to  teach  them 
also  not  to  believe  the  whole  Bible  and  what  part  of  the  Bible 
to  believe,  and  in  proportion  to  the  degree  in  which  its  princi- 
ples and  spirit  are  accepted  that  is  what  it  must  result  in.  The 
school  of  critical  scholars  which  it  represents  began  by  ques- 
tioning and  ends  by  denying  the  truth  of  large  sections  of 
Scripture.    This  is  especially  true  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  it 


grows  more  evident  every  day  that  both  Testaments  are  in  the 
same  boat  and  must  sink  or  swim  together. 

It  is  not  meant  by  this  that  all  critics  are  higher  critics,  or  all 
higher  critics  destructive  critics.  The  words  are  used  not 
always  accurately  but  with  a  certain  elasticity.  "Higher"  criti- 
cism in  the  proper  sense  is  of  course  as  legitimate  a  theological 
discipline  as  "lower,"  which  it  can  admirably  supplement.  But 
in  common  parlance,  higher  criticism  usually  means  that  school 
of  criticism  now  all  the  rage,  which  not  only  denies  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  whole  Scripture,  but  claims  to  have  made 
and  demonstrated  its  case.  "Criticism  has  won,"  one  of  its 
eminent  advocates  boasts,  "All  that  remains  is  to  settle  the 
indemnity."  The  present  writer  heard  a  former  Presbyterian 
minister  relate  publicly  twenty-five  years  ago  why  he  became  a 
Unitarian.  He  had  only  an  imperfect  theological  education,  he 
said,  and  when  he  "struck  the  higher  criticism,"  he  soon  saw 
that  the  Old  Testament  must  go.  But  he  drew  "a  charmed 
circle  about  the  New,"  saying,  "I  will  never  touch  that."  But 
that  phase  soon  passed:  "and  last  Easter,"  he  concluded  his 
confession  of  unfaith,  "I  rejected  the  last  vestige  of  super- 
natural religion  by  rejecting  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
from  the  dead." 

Henry  Ward  Beecher  used  to  say  that  people  are  saved  by 
their  inconsistencies.  Few  people  are  always  logical — some 
never  are.  It  is  better  to  be  an  illogical  believer  than  a  logical 
infidel.  The  logical  terminus  of  the  Shorter  Bible  is  undoubt- 
edly no  Bible  at  all,  but  we  may  hope  that  not  all  who  read  it 
will  arrive  at  the  terminal  station.  But  its  bottommost  princi- 
ples are  the  outcome  of  the  anti-supernatural  tide  sweep- 
ing over  the  world  leaving  its  wreckage  on  every  shore. 
The  excision  of  the  last  chapters  of  Exodus  is  a  glaring  in- 
stance of  this.  The  historical  statements  about  the  taber- 
nacle are  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  especially  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  the  critics  now  tell  us  all  this 
is  incorrect.  No  such  building  ever  existed  except  in  the 
imagination  of  some  Jews  living  during  or  after  the  Exile, 
centuries  later,  who  were  bent  on  glorifying  the  historical 
origin  of  the  nation  and  its  institutions,  and  so  embroidered 
the  prosaic  facts  by  a  fancy  sketch  of  an  imaginary  taber- 

8 


nacle  put  forth  in  Moses'  name.  It  was  a  good  "Story,"  but 
not  "History" ;  no  doubt  not  unlike  "The  Abraham  Narrative," 
but  less  historical  perhaps. 

This  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  tabernacle  story  is  closely 
involved  with  the  still  more  extraordinary  creation  known  as 
the  Priest  Code,  supposedly  that  section  of  the  Pentateuch,  or 
Hexateuch,  dealing  with  the  priestly  legislation,  usages  and 
cultus,  including  the  tabernacle  and  all  those  books  or  parts 
of  books  having  a  genetic  relation  thereto.  Professor  Kent, 
the  leading  editor  of  the  Shorter  Bible,  lauds  Dr.  Driver, 
magna  cum  laude,  in  his  presentation  of  "the  results  of  recent 
critical  research."^  Dr.  Driver  uses  the  term  Priest-Code, 
or  "P"  as  "in  strictness  applicable  only  to  the  'ceremonial  sec- 
tions Exodus — Numbers'  "  but  it  is  not  unsuitable,  he  thinks, 
to  extend  it  to  the  correlated  sections  in  Joshua,  considering 
them  all,  "the  framework  of  our  present  Hexateuch."  "This," 
he  continues,  "belongs  approximately  to  the  period  of  the 
Babylonish  Captivity."^  Driver  says  this  in  his  character- 
istic manner  of  hesitation,  for  which  he  incurred  the  dis- 
approval of  the  more  radical  Cheyne,  but  it  is  his  definite 
judgment. 

"P"  lived  centuries  later  than  the  events  he  describes,  and 
what  he  describes  as  actual  facts  were  very  many  of  them  not 
facts  but  fiction.  Driver  gives  Wellhausen  credit  for  the  term 
Priest-Code.  Wellhausen  regards  the  tabernacle  as  a  creation 
of  the  post-exilic  imagination.  "It  was,"  he  says,  "the  copy  and 
not  the  prototype  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem" ;  thus  putting  the 
cart  before  the  horse  and  insisting  that  it  belongs  there.  "The 
Priest-Code  was  absolutely  unknown  even  down  to  the  middle 
of  the  exile-"  Professor  Kent  commends  Wellhausen  though 
not  so  unreservedly  as  he  does  Driver.'' 

Wellhausen,  from  our  standpoint,  is  not  felicitious  in 
alluding  to  Voltaire  as  one  of  the  first  skeptics  about  the 
tabernacle.'^     It   must  be  evident  then  why,    following  Vol- 

*^  History  of  the  Hebrew  People— The  United  Kingdom,  p.  209  (Ap- 
pendix). 

^Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  10  and  136. 

^History  of  the  Hebrew  People— The  United  Kingdom  (Appendix), 
p.  210. 

7  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena  to  History  of  Israel,  pp.  37,  39  and  48. 


taire's  lead,  twentieth  century  skeptics,  now  called  critics,  ex- 
clude "the  ceremonial  sections"  of  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and 
Numbers  from  the  Shorter  Bible  and  then  proceed  to  weed  out 
of  the  rest  of  the  Bible  any  and  every  allusion  that  can  lend 
support  to  the  notion  that  the  Priest-Code  came  from  the  time 
of  Moses,  or  was  in  actual  use  before  the  exile.  As  long  as 
these  books  and  passages  stand  in  the  Bible  they  are  like  the 
dykes  of  Holland.  The  flood  of  doubt  can  not  rush  in.  The 
skeptical  critics  naturally  would  like  to  make  leaks  in  the 
dykes.  To  see  how  thoroughly,  we  may  better  say  ruthlessly, 
this  is  done,  let  the  reader  turn  to  page  91  (section  43) 
where  the  "Construction  of  the  Tent  of  Meeting"  is  de- 
scribed. Exodus  XXV.  I  tells  us  that  "The  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses  saying,"  and  then  follows  a  detailed  list  of  the  mater- 
ials needed  for  a  "ceremonial"  tabernacle:  gold,  silver, 
brass,  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  fine  linen,  oil,  spices,  incense,  onyx 
stones,  &c.  All  these  the  Shorteners  omit,  jumping  over  to  the 
eighth  verse  which  reads  "And  let  them  make  me  a  sanctuary 
that  I  may  dwell  among  them."  The  innocent  reader  of  the 
Shorter  Bible  would  naturally  suppose  that  there  were  no  such 
materials  used  in  the  "tent  of  meeting."  The  ninth  verse  en- 
joins "the  pattern  of  the  tabernacle,"  which  is  evidently  the 
one  showed  to  Moses  in  the  mount.  This  also  the  Shorteners 
omit  and  also  the  rest  of  that  chapter,  and  the  rest  of  the  book 
and  such  passages  in  the  succeeding  books  as  cannot  be  plausi- 
bly made  to  consist  with  the  theory  that  there  was  no  cere- 
monial tabernacle.  We  raise  the  question — Is  this  or  is  it 
not  suppressio  verif  Is  the  public,  especially  the  unlearned 
public,  dealt  with  fairly? 

Almost  the  whole  book  of  Leviticus  is  omitted, — shut  out  of 
the  witness  box, — although  the  phrase  "The  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses"  occurs  twenty-nine  times,  with  two  special  and  solemn 
repetitions  that  these  commandments  were  given  through 
Moses  at  Mount  Sinai.  The  moiety  of  Leviticus  allowed  to 
remain  is  placed  after  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  along  with  a  few 
fragments  from  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy,  thus  proclaiming 
them  all  as  dating  from  exilian  or  postexilian  times.  In  other 
words  the  editors,  all  and  singular,  having  accepted  the  ration- 
alistic speculations  and  "results"  of  the  destructive  criticism, 


deem  it  permissible  to  propagate  their  views  by  leaving  out  of 
the  Bible  passages  which  contradict  their  views,  without  any 
explanation  of  the  principles  on  which  the  omissions  were 
made.  If  they  had  said  plainly  in  the  Prefaces  what  these  prin- 
ciples were,  no  objection  could  be  made  on  ethical  grounds. 
As  it  is,  the  ethical  propriety  of  such  a  propaganda  is  open  to 
the  gravest  question.  If  a  jurist,  no  matter  how  eminent  were 
to  publish  a  Shorter  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or,  say, 
a  Shorter  Blackstone  made  on  similar  principles,  especially  if  it 
were  intended  for  the  unlearned  in  the  law,  withholding  expla- 
nation of  the  principles  underlying  the  omissions,  as  a  means  of 
propagating  his  views  of  the  Constitution  or  of  Blackstone, 
what  would  his  standing  be  with  his  professional  brethren? 

Why  are  the  Books  of  Chronicles  absent  from  the  Shorter 
Bible?  The  Preface  does  not  tell,  but  the  masters  of  the  art  of 
Bible  dissection,  leave  us  no  room  for  doubt.  Driver  says  •}  "It 
does  not  seem  possible  to  'treat  the  additional  matter'  [addi- 
tional, i.e.,  to  Samuel  and  Kings]  as  strictly  and  literally  his- 
torical." Professor  Kent  himself  says  "the  Chronicler  naively 
read  into  earlier  epochs  the  conditions  and  current  traditions  of 
his  own  times,"  though  he  acquits  him  of  intentional  decep- 
tion.^ This  means  that  the  Chronicler  "naively"  pictured  the 
tabernacle  and  Solomon's  temple  and  the  worship  and  cultus 
centering  in  them  as  really  originating  under  Mosaic  law,  and 
being  developed  by  David  and  Solomon  especially.  Other 
critics  speak  more  unqualifiedly.  Dr.  H.  P.  Smith  says  flatly,^" 
"His  work  must  not  be  called  history,"  and,^^  "Later  times  made 
David  a  saint  after  their  own  ideal,  a  nursing  father  of  the  Old 
Testament  church,  organizer  of  the  Levitical  system,  and  the 
author  of  the  Psalter" — all  absurd  of  course,  and  David  as  a 
Psalmist  the  crowning  absurdity.  "See  what  Chronicles  has 
made  out  of  David,"  Wellhausen  exclaims,^^  and  then  paints  a 

^Introduction  to  Literature  of  O.  T.,  p.  532. 

^  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  Greek  Period,  p.  272. 

10  O.  T.  History,  p.  5. 

"  O.  T.  History,  pp.  154-5. 

'^^  History  of  Israel,  p.  182.  The  critical  view  is  not  that  Samuel  and 
Kings  are  always  historically  reliable,  but  only  more  reliable  than 
Chronicles.  Wellhausen  calls  i  Samuel  ii.  17  a  "pious  make-up"  and 
says  "There  cannot  be  a  word  of  truth  in  the  whole  narrative"  (His- 
tory of  Israel,  pp.  248-9).     The  Shorter  Bible  omits  the  whole  chapter. 


picture  full  of  scorn:  "feebly  holy  picture  seen  through  a  cloud 
of  incense,"  the  "head  of  a  swarm  of  priests  and  Levites."  We 
may  turn  his  own  words  against  him.  Chronicles  has  made  out 
of  David  a  picture  very  unwelcome  to  the  critics,  the  continua- 
tor  and  restorer  of  the  priestly  worship  and  cultus,  as  pre- 
scribed in  the  Law  of  Moses,  which  is  so  hard  for  the  critics 
to  get  rid  of  that  the  only  safe  way  to  deal  with  Chronicles  is 
to  expel  it  bodily  from  the  Canon,  and — out  of  the  Canon  of  the 
Shorter  Bible  Chronicles  goes. 

By  the  grace  of  God  Chronicles  still  remains  in  the  real 
Bible  to  witness  to  this  age  that  the  Priest-Code  and  its  corol- 
laries are  not  a  fraus  pia  perpetrated  by  a  coterie  of  patriotic 
Jews  after  the  exile  and  palmed  off  as  Moses'  own,  but  a  true 
and  living  part  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  Scripture,  which 
holy  men  of  God  were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  create. 
Chronicles  has  its  difficulties,  but  the  words  of  Klosterman^^ 
might  have  been  profitably  remembered  before  the  authors  of 
the  Shorter  Bible  wrested  it  violently  from  its  place  in  the 
Canon:  "Chronicles  demands  an  able  and  cautious  examina- 
tion, if  we  would  not  sin  against  any  Biblical  book,  nor  against 
the  sense  of  impartial  investigation." 

The  attitude  of  the  Shorteners  to  the  Psalms  is  of  a  piece 
with  the  rest.  Professor  Kent  says  :^*  "Probably  a  few  of  the 
proverbs  and  Psalms  in  our  present  collections  are  from  Israel- 
itish  authors."  Driver^^  thinks  that  "very  few  of  the  Psalms 
are  earlier  than  the  seventh  century.  .  .  .  the  Psalter  in  all  its 
parts  is  a  compilation  of  the  postexilic  age,"^®  though  there 
may  be  some  of  preexilian  origin.  Wellhausen  is  more  radical. 
"The  Psalter  is  the  hymn  book  of  the  second  Temple."^''^  "The 
question  is  not  whether  it  contains  any  postexilian  Psalms  but 
whether  it  contains  any  that  are  preexilian.^^  Accordingly,  of 
the  150  Psalms  eighty-one  are  omitted  altogether.  Of  the  re- 
maining sixty-nine,  twenty-one  are  so  cut  to  pieces  that,  reck- 

"^^  New  Schaff-Hertzog  Encyclopedia,  vol.  Ill,  p.  71. 
1*  History  of  Hebrew  People,  Divided  Kingdom,  p.  108.    By  Israelitish 
he  means  non-Judean  we  understand. 
15  Lit.  of  O.  T.,  p.  384- 
18  Op.  cit.,  p.  386. 

17  Orr,  Problem  of  O.  T.,  p.  434.  note. 

18  See  also,  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  501. 

12 


oning  roughly,  the  total  loss  amounts  to  about  two-thirds 
killed,  wounded  and  missing.  In  some  cases  we  can  see 
no  special  reason  why  one  Psalm  or  verse  is  taken  and  its  fel- 
low left.  But  usually  the  reason  is  writ  large.  Whatever 
favors  the  historical  reliability  of  the  entire  record  of  the 
wonders  and  judgments  of  the  Exodus,  especially  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  chiefest  of  all  the  early 
origin  of  the  Priest-Code  and  its  correlates  is  on  the  black  list. 
Exceptions  there  may  be,  but  they  are  rare.  Classic  examples 
are  the  78th,  105th,  io6th  Psalms,  which  rehearse  the  history  of 
the  nation  in  detail,  along  the  lines  to  which  we  are  accustomed, 
but  which  the  "new  view  of  the  Bible"  rejects, — the  tabernacle 
of  Shiloh,  the  tribe  of  Judah,  David  his  servant,  the  calf  at 
Horeb,  &c.  The  Shorteners  first  cut  this  and  its  connectives  out 
root  and  branch  in  the  Jewish  law  book,  why  should  they  let  it 
stay  in  the  hymn  book?  Would  they  sing  in  the  132nd  Psalm, 
"Lord,  remember  David,"  when  their  avowed  purpose  is  to  teach 
us  to  forget  that  David  was  the  sweet  singer  of  Israel;  or  keep 
the  99th  which  classes  Aaron  as  a  Priest,  whereas  the  Shorter 
Bible  scarcely  has  a  bowing  acquaintance  with  Priest  or  Levite 
until  after  the  exile ;  or  the  80th,  with  its  exquisite  exordium, 
"Give  ear,  O  Shepherd  of  Israel,  Thou  that  leadest  Joseph 
like  a  flock,"  or  especially  the  89th,  with  its  motif  deeply  rooted 
in  the  covenant  with  "David,  my  servant,"  of  whom  it  is  said, 
"With  my  holy  oil  have  I  anointed  him."  What  would  be 
thought  of  a  musician  who  should  shorten  Beethoven's  Ninth 
Symphony,  the  climax  of  his  genius,  by  censoring  phrases,  en- 
chanting passages,  the  Hymn  of  Joy,  a  whole  movement,  to 
gratify  some  sukunft  theory  of  his  own?  The  Psalter  is  too 
firmly  mortised  into  the  framework  of  the  Psalmody  of  the 
Church  Universal  to  yield  readily  to  such  sacrilegious  vandal- 
ism. 

All  the  Imprecatory  Psalms  are  deleted,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected. The  7th,  35th,  69th  and  109th  are  examples,  par  emi- 
nence, but  there  are  nearly  fifty  more  that  contain  imprecatory 
elements.  These  also  are  rejected  either  wholly  or  in  part. 
The  magnificent  139th  contains  an  imprecatorial  passage  (vss. 
19-22).  "Do  not  I  hate  them  that  hate  thee."  This  is  stricken 
out  with  the  usual  sang  froid  of  the  Shorteners.  Many  devout 
Christians  have  found  such  passages  stumbling  blocks.  Alexan- 

13 


ier  Duff,  first  missionary  of  the  (Established)  Church  of  Scot- 
land to  India,  and  an  acknowledged  primus  inter  pares  among 
all  missionaries,  confessed  this  of  himself  until  the  horrors  of 
the  Indian  mutiny  opened  his  eyes  to  the  need  of  "naked  piti- 
less justice"  at  some  crucial  epochs.  He  must  be  blind  who 
cannot  perceive  that  since  19 14,  Almighty  God  has  been  writ- 
ing his  Commentaries  on  the  Imprecatory  Psalms  in  letters  of 
blood  and  fire  on  the  face  of  Europe,  and  not  only  on  such 
Psalms  as  these  but  on  those  deep  strains  in  both  Testaments 
which  magnify  his  just  and  holy  Law  and  its  terrors  and 
threatenings.  The  Shorter  Bible,  like  the  "modern  mind" 
that  produced  it,  betrays  the  sentimental  aversion  for  Mt. 
Sinai  and  what  it  stands  for,  which  includes  the  Anathema  of 
the  first  great  missionary  Apostle,  on  men  or  angels  who  per- 
vert the  gospel  and  wrest  the  Scriptures.  They  likewise  have 
forgotten  the  Dies  Irae  and  the  "wrath  of  the  Lamb"  in  the 
Apocalypse.  Such  Psalms  as  these  are  quite  intelligible  when 
read  in  the  light  of  David's  life,  the  man  after  God's  own 
heart,  in  spite  of  his  sins;  the  anointed  executioner  of  divine 
justice  on  guilty  men  and  nations;  not  out  of  personal  malice 
to  his  enemies,  as  his  behavior  to  Saul  and  his  grief  over  Ab- 
salom show.  But  all  who  gird  at  Old  Testament  proclama- 
tions of  divine  judgments  will  like  the  Shorter  Bible  for  that 
very  reason.  What  the  Old  Testament  needs  is  not  "shorten- 
ing," but  "italicising,"  not  abbreviation,  but  emphasis.  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  selected  the  iioth  Psalm  for  especial  em- 
phasis, arguing  out  of  it  with  the  Pharisees  about  his  own 
claims, — "How  say  the  scribes  that  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
David  ?"  The  Shorter  Nezv  Testament  rejects  this  by  omitting 
the  entire  chapter  in  Matthew  and  again  in  Luke  in  which  it 
occurs,  and  by  slicing  deftly  out  of  Mark  the  verses  in  which  it 
is  found,  though  this  requires  the  cutting  of  a  verse  in  two. 
Now  the  Shorter  Old  Testament  omits  the  whole  Psalm,  in  the 
face  of  Christ's  own  solemn  asservation,  in  Mark  (whom  the 
critics  think  the  more  reliable),  "For  David  himself  said  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."  Thus  both  Testaments  are  stripped  bare  of  this 
witness  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  his  Divine  Sonship. 
Can  the  Christian  churches  sit  silent  and  see  their  Lord  thus 
wounded  in  the  house  of  his  friends? 

There  are  at  least  two  Isaiahs  in  the  Shorter  Bible:   Isaiah 


14 


the  son  of  Amoz  lived  two  centuries  or  more  before  the  exile, 
the  other  Isaiah  (or  Isaiahs)  in  exilic  or  postexilic  times.  This 
is  indicated  by  placing  certain  extracts  from  the  son  of  Amoz 
on  pages  356-372  among  preexilian  prophets,  and  other  ex- 
tracts, also  labelled  "Isaiah,'"  on  pages  413-437,  among  or  after 
exilian  prophets.  "Contents"  (page  xviii,  and  pages  xx,  xxi) 
marks  the  same  difference.  The  leading  editor  of  the  Shorter 
Bible  says  there  was  "a  collection  of  prophecies  coming  from 
the  anonymous  co-workers  of  the  author  of  Malachi,  appended 
to  the  writings  of  the  great  prophet  of  the  Exile."^®  Else- 
where-" he  attributes  it  "probably"  to  the  second  Isaiah.  Th 
exact  number  of  second  Isaiahs  has  evidently  not  yet  been 
determined  by  the  "consensus  of  criticism" ;  and  their  "Great 
Unknowns"  (it  is  now  more  accurate  to  use  the  plural!)  are  in 
this  respect  like  Melchisedek,  without  father,  without  mother, 
without  descent,  having  neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of 
life.    No  one  knows  anything  about  them. 

We  cannot  be  surprised,  then,  that  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz. 
should  be  denied  part  and  lot  in  the  53rd  Chapter  of  Isaiah. 
This  was  to  be  expected.  But  the  acme  of  abomination  is 
reached  when  this  holy  of  holies  is  retained,  indeed,  but  onl\ 
to  have  part  of  its  most  precious  contents  discarded:  "Yet  it 
pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him ;  he  hath  put  him  to  grief :  when 
thou  shalt  make  his  soul  an  offering  for  sin,  he  shall  see  his 
seed,  he  shall  prolong  Jiis  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord 
shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his 
soul  and  shall  be  satisfied :  by  his  knowledge.  .  .  ."  These 
precious  words  are  not  merely  denied  to  the  Evangelical 
Prophet,  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amoz,  but  they  are  rudely  severed 
from  the  sayings  of  the  Great  Unknown  of  the  critics,  as  though 
not  worth  the  preserving.  The  literary  fiction  of  Deutero-  or 
Trito-Isaiah  appears  innocent  beside  this  dagger  thrust  in  the 
cor  cordis,  "the  real  heart  of  the  Bible,"  which  these  enemies  of 
evangelical  faith  claim  they  wish  to  preserve.  They  did  a 
like  thing  when  they  struck  the  30th  verse  from  the  8th  of 
Romans,  "Moreover  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also 
called:  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified:  and  whom 
he  justified,  them  he  also  glorified."    But,  somehow,  the  attack 

^^  History  of  the  Jewish  People,  Persian  Period,  p.  112. 

20  Social  Teachings  of  Jesus,  p.  127. 

15 


on  Isaiah  seems  blacker  and  more  inexcusable-  Why  should 
these  modern  Jehoiakims  forbid  Paul  and  Isaiah  to  speak  what 
the  Spirit  moved  them  to  utter? 

It  is  grievous  to  see  again  the  names  of  official  representa- 
tives of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  and  the  Young 
Women's  Christian  Association  appearing  on  the  title  page. 
Do  the  responsible  managers  of  these  two  great  institutions  ap- 
prove or  disapprove  of  this  rationalistic  assault  on  the  Bible? 
If  they  approve  it  or  allow  it,  they  must  not  be  surprised  if  in 
due  time  the  churches  take  official  action  withdrawing  their 
support  from  the  Associations  themselves. 

All  concerned  may  profitably  remember  the  Second  Psalm, 
retained  happily  by  the  Shorter  Bible: 

"Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he  be  angry  and  ye  perish  from  the  way 
when  his  wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little." 


i6 


PKINTCO  IN  U.S.A. 


on  Isaiah  see 
these  modern 
the  Spirit  mo 

It  is  grieve 
tives  of  the  Y 
Women's  Ch 
Do  the  respor 
prove  or  disa 
If  they  appro 
due  time  the 
support  from 

All  concern 
retained  happ 

"Kiss  the  S 
when  his  wrat 


DATE  DUE 

1 

..^l^fiM*?^ 

^fe^alii*' 

1 

1 

1 — — 

i 

CAVLOftO 

BS195.1.K37F7 

The  Shorter  Bible  -  the  Old  Testament. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00046  6211 


■^^ 


X  <^,r 


.■f^ 


.M 


m 


m 


a^^ 


